Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Karl Wick wrote:
Now there's a thought ... what if each
textbook project
decides for itself depending on its own estimation of its
needs? If a project decides wrongly, then only it has to
start over. Sitewide policy can be submitted to the public
domain, or kept under GFDL for copying from Wikipedia.
I think that it would be very unpractical. Keeping everything
GFDL makes us bidirectionally compatibe with Wikipedia.
Changing license to something else breaks that link.
I tend to agree. IMO the most practical thing for us to do is to have
everything under the GNU FDL. This will make it very easy to use the vast
amounts of material already in Wikipedia (which is, by far, the largest open
content project in the world - please correct me if I am wrong anybody).
However, I also think it would be a great long term strategy to work with the
GNU, Creative Commons, Open Content and others who publish copyleft/open
content/viral licenses to ensure direct compatibility. IMO it is real stupid
and counter to the intent of these licenses that text cannot flow freely
between them. There should be some baseline of "freedom" that all these
licenses already have and will recognize for the purposes of transferability.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)